Question No. 204 Ms. Dawn Black: With regard to detainee handling in Afghanistan: (a) at what time was Canada first granted formal access to Afghan monitor detention facilities in Kandahar; (b) how many Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) officers were in Kandahar in August 2005, and what was the number for each month since; (c) did CSC direct their officers to specifically monitor detainees taken by Canadians and held in Afghan custody, and, if so, what form did that direction take; (d) what type of investigation was begun by the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces following the publishing of reports of torture in the G ...[+++]lobe and Mail on Monday, April 23, 2007, and when was it commenced; (e) what is the number of detainees transferred to Afghan custody since the signing of the December 18, 2005, “Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan”; (f) following the processing of transfer documents and the release of a detainee to Afghan authorities, how are National Defence Headquarters, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) and the Minister of National Defence informed of this transfer respectively; (g) when was information about the Department of Foreign Affairs country reports, starting in 2002, describing torture and inhumane treatment in Afghan prisons as “common”, first released outside of the Department and when were i) the current and previous Foreign Affairs Ministers made aware, ii) the current and previous Defence Ministers made aware, iii) the current and previous Prime Ministers made aware; (h) when were negotiations begun on the arrangement for monitoring access announced by the Minister of National Defence on Wednesday April 25, 2007, and i) when were negotiations concluded, ii) when was the CDS made aware of the arrangement, iii) when was the Minister of Foreign Affairs made aware of the arrangement, iv) when was the Prime Minister made awa ...

3. Notes with deep concern that since 2000 the European Union has been plagued by slow economic and employment growth, a transfer of productivity gains from workers to employers, as well as by the persistence of high levels of unemployment, poverty, social exclusion, precarious work and income inequality; notes that, in contrast, the profit share as a proportion of GDP in the euro area is currently close to its highest for at least 25 years, whilst the wage share has been declining decade by decade;

Ms. Sheila Fraser: As we noted in the report, he told us that he was aware that there had at times been transactions in which Crown corporations might have taken part with the department, but he was not aware of the fact that there was.He thought it was appropriate for money to be transferred from the department to Crown corporations, but, as he mentioned again today, he was not aware of the commissions that had been paid at the time of those transfers.

Broadly, transfers are inversely correlated with income per head, with Lisboa e Vale do Tejo, the wealthiest region receiving less than a third per head of population of the amount going to Alentejo, the least wealthy (In relation to GDP, transfers to the former amount to barely 1%, to the latter 6%.)

It strikes me as positively perverse for this report to welcome a reduction in the number of journeys on official business that our officials take from Luxembourg to Brussels and back, and for it to be boasted that, in 2000, EUR 2.8 million was saved in this way, ignoring the fact that these figures conceal enforced transfers of lower and middle-stream officials from Luxembourg to Brussels, which their families find traumatic and socially and financially intolerable.

International transfers and payments for current transactions relating to specific commitments entered into under the GATS must not be restricted, except in cases of balance-of-payments difficulties and under certain circumstances.